Open Access

Surgical management of odontogenic myxoma: a case report and review of the literature

  • Yoko Kawase-Koga1Email author,
  • Hideto Saijo1,
  • Kazuhito Hoshi1,
  • Tsuyoshi Takato1 and
  • Yoshiyuki Mori1
BMC Research Notes20147:214

https://doi.org/10.1186/1756-0500-7-214

Received: 21 November 2013

Accepted: 25 March 2014

Published: 5 April 2014

Abstract

Background

Odontogenic myxoma is a benign odontogenic tumor with locally aggressive behavior, and is relatively rare in the oral cavity. There are currently no clear surgical management guidelines for odontogenic myxoma, and a variety of approaches may be used. This study evaluated the literature concerning the surgical management of odontogenic myxoma, and reports the long-term outcome of a case managed by using a more conservative surgical approach.

Case presentation

We managed a 40-year-old Japanese man with odontogenic myxoma in the right mandible by enucleation and curettage, a relatively conservative approach that has proved to have been justified by a lack of recurrence over 10 years. Our strategy was compared with others reported in the literature, which was identified by a PubMed search using the term “odontogenic myxoma”. Articles without full text or with missing data were excluded. The age and sex of patients, the tumor location (maxilla/mandible), treatment (conservative/radical), recurrence, and follow-up period were compared in the reported cases that we evaluated. From the initial 211 studies identified, 20 studies qualified as mandibular cases of odontogenic myxoma. Recurrence was reported in three cases that had been treated with a more conservative surgical approach.

Conclusions

Enucleation and curettage has proved an effective approach in several cases in ours there has been no recurrence more than 10 years after surgery but the risk of recurrence appears to be higher. We discuss the important factors that must be considered when determining the correct management approach to odontogenic myxoma.

Keywords

Myxoma Mandible Conservative treatment Long-term follow-up

Background

Odontogenic myxoma is a very rare benign tumor that may arise in the maxilla or mandible, but which can be locally aggressive. It accounts for 3–6% of all odontogenic tumors [1, 2]. Odontogenic myxoma is usually asymptomatic and is found incidentally on radiographs, appearing as a “soap bubble”. The lesions are not encapsulated, allowing substantial infiltration into the adjacent medullary bone. Consequently, odontogenic myxoma is generally managed surgically; however, there has been some debate as to the most appropriate surgical approach.

Reports of surgical treatment of odontogenic myxoma vary from simple enucleation and curettage to segmental resection and hemimandibulectomy. Recurrence rates are reportedly high, at around 25%, especially when a more conservative approach is taken [3]. Nonetheless, a more conservative approach exemplified by enucleation and curettagehas several advantages over more radical treatments like segmental mandibulectomy and mandibular reconstruction with fibular microsurgical flap formation [3]. There are currently no clear evidence-based surgical management guidelines for odontogenic myxoma.

Here, we describe the long-term outcome of a case of mandibular odontogenic myxoma managed by enucleation and curettage, in the context of a systematic review of the literature, focusing especially on recurrence.

Case presentation

A 40-year-old Japanese man was referred to the Department of Oral-Maxillofacial Surgery, Dentistry and Orthodontics, at The University of Tokyo Hospital by a dental clinic after identification of a radiolucent finding on the right side of his mandible in December 2002. The patient reported no symptoms in his mouth including the mandibular area, and on clinical examination no swelling could be detected on the right side of the jaw, and the oral mucosa appeared normal (Figure 1A). However, a panoramic radiograph revealed an extensive radiolucent and multilocular area with imprecise borders that extended from the right posterior mandibular body to around the root of tooth #46, and exhibited a “soap bubble” appearance (Figure 1B). Computed axial tomography imaging showed an area of infiltration in the medullary bone with thin trabeculae in the right side of the mandible (Figure 2). The tumor measured approximately 30 × 15 × 40 mm. The patient’s medical history was otherwise unremarkable. An incisional biopsy showed loosely arranged spindle-shaped cells in a myxoid fibrous stroma. On the basis of these histological findings, a provisional diagnosis of odontogenic myxoma was made.
Figure 1

Pre-operative findings: (A) Intraoral photograph showing no swelling (arrows). (B) Panoramic radiograph indicating a “soap-bubble” appearance of the right jaw (arrows).

Figure 2

An axial computed tomography scan indicating a lesion on the right side of the mandible with thin residual bony trabeculae, and expansile invasion (arrows).

We performed extraction of tooth #46, and an enucleation and wide curettage of the normal surrounding tissue to preserve the inferior alveolar nerve, the jaw, and oral function under general anesthesia with nasopharyngeal intubation (Figure 3A). The surgical specimen revealed benign-looking spindled and stellate cells in the mucinous stroma (Figure 3B, C). Taken together, these findings confirmed the diagnosis of odontogenic myxoma. There have been no clinical or radiological signs of recurrence over 10 years follow-up (Figure 4A, B).
Figure 3

Intra-operative findings: (A) Intraoral photograph indicating the lesion (arrows). (B) Surgical specimen of the right mandible. (C) High-power view of histopathological findings.

Figure 4

Post-operative findings: Intraoral photograph (A) and panoramic radiograph taken 10 years after surgery indicates full healing without recurrence.

Systematic review of the literature

To investigate the influence of a conservative or radical surgical approach to odontogenic myxoma, we undertook a search of the PubMed database in July 2013 using the search term “odontogenic myxoma” that identified 211 studies published between December 1990 and July 2013 (Figure 5). Articles for which full text was not available or with missing data were excluded. The second step involved filtering the remaining 181 studies by patient age and sex, tumor location (maxilla/mandible), treatment approach (conservative/radical), recurrence, and follow-up period. Conservative treatment was defined as enucleation, curettage, and marginal resection; radical treatment was defined as segmental or block resection, and hemimandibulectomy requiring reconstruction. After this second step, 45 articles were identified, of which 21 (reporting 44 cases of mandibular disease) were selected for analysis.
Figure 5

Systematic search strategy used to identify reports of “odontogenic myxoma” in the literature.

Details of the 44 cases are given in Table 1. The mean age of patients was 31.9 years, and 22 (50.0%) were male. Twenty of the 44 cases (45.5%) were managed by conservative surgical techniques, the remainder underwent radical treatment. Tumors recurred in three of those who were treated with conservative surgery (15.0%); one patient had undergone a marginal resection and the other two had undergone enucleation and curettage. There were no reported recurrences in any patient who underwent radical surgery. The mean follow-up period was 46.4 months.
Table 1

Clinical studies of mandibular odontogenic myxoma published between December 1990 and July 2013

Author

Year

No. of cases

Age

Sex

Treatment

Follow-up period (months)

Recurrence

Size (mm)

Miranda et al. [4]

2013

1

55

M

Conservative

12

None

28 × 33

Lahey et al. [5]

2013

1

69

F

Radical

14

None

30 × 30

De Melo et al. [6]

2012

1

20

F

Radical

18

None

NA

Manne et al. [7]

2012

1

19

M

Radical

30

None

NA

Albanese et al. [8]

2012

1

25

F

Conservative

6

None

21.2 × 47.6

Mauro et al. [9]

2012

1

6

M

Conservative

6

None

NA

Kansy et al. [10]

2012

1/4

33

F

Conservative

180

Recurrence

NA

Boffano et al. [2]

2011

8/10

20

M

Conservative

42

None

20

   

38

M

Conservative

38

None

25

   

42

F

Conservative

40

None

30

   

36

F

Radical

12

None

40

   

31

F

Radical

108

None

40

   

55

M

Radical

165

None

45

   

50

M

Radical

15

None

50

   

41

M

Radical

112

None

50

Lin et al. [11]

2010

1

25

F

Conservative

24

None

NA

Reddy et al. [12]

2010

1/2

26

F

Radical

24

None

NA

Rajasekher et al. [13]

2009

1

17

F

Conservative

48

None

70 × 30

Leiser et al. [14]

2009

1/3

52

M

Radical

60

None

NA

Landes et al. [15]

2008

1

14

M

Radical

30

None

NA

Li et al. [16]

2006

12/25

40

F

Radical

5

None

NA

   

66

F

Radical

24

None

NA

   

32

M

Conservative

84

None

NA

   

20

M

Radical

12

None

NA

   

17

F

Radical

30

None

NA

   

46

M

Radical

48

None

NA

   

12

M

Radical

36

None

NA

   

36

F

Radical

3

None

NA

   

7

M

Conservative

84

None

NA

   

22

F

Radical

84

None

NA

   

37

M

Conservative

132

None

NA

   

32

F

Radical

44

None

NA

Sharma et al. [17]

2003

1

23

F

Radical

48

None

NA

Kimura et al. [18]

2001

1

20

F

Radical

24

None

NA

Sumi et al. [1]

2000

1

48

M

Conservative

22

None

15 × 25 × 70

Shimoyama et al. [19]

2000

1

51

M

Conservative

24

None

30 × 28

Lo Muzio et al. [20]

1996

6/10

28

M

Conservative

24

Recurrence

NA

   

16

F

Conservative

31

None

NA

   

17

M

Radical

60

None

NA

   

65

F

Conservative

84

None

NA

   

22

F

Conservative

48

Recurrence

NA

   

21

M

Conservative

24

None

NA

Schneck et al. [21]

 

1/2

24

F

Radical

60

None

NA

Bucci et al. [22]

1993

1

28

M

Conservative

24

None

30 × 40

Abbreviations: M male, F female, NA not available.

Discussion

Thoma and Goldman first described odontogenic myxoma of the jaw in 1947 [23]. Odontogenic myxoma is generally regarded as a rare benign tumor that occurs in tooth-bearing areas of the mandible and maxilla, and is characterized by its slow growth and bony invasions, resulting in painless facial deformity. Its radiological appearance is of a “soap bubble” or “tennis racquet strings” [24]. Our patient reported no symptoms in the right mandibular area; however, panoramic radiography revealed an extensive radiolucent and multilocular area with imprecise borders that extended from the right posterior mandibular body to the area around the root of tooth #46.

Initial treatment for odontogenic myxoma is surgery, but there appears to be some controversy about the best approach to take and evidence-based management guidelines have not been established. To investigate the influence of a conservative or radical surgical approach to odontogenic myxoma, we undertook a search of the PubMed database in July 2013 using the search term “odontogenic myxoma” that identified 211 studies published between December 1990 and July 2013 (Figure 5). Articles for which full text was not available or with missing data were excluded. The second step involved filtering the remaining 181 studies by patient age and sex, tumor location (maxilla/mandible), treatment approach (conservative/radical), recurrence, and follow-up period. Conservative treatment was defined as enucleation, curettage, and marginal resection; radical treatment was defined as segmental or block resection, and hemimandibulectomy requiring reconstruction. After this second step, 45 articles were identified, of which 21 (reporting 44 cases of mandibular disease) were selected for analysis. Details of the 44 cases are given in Table 1. The mean age of patients was 31.9 years, and 22 (50.0%) were male. Twenty of the 44 cases (45.5%) were managed by conservative surgical techniques, the remainder underwent radical treatment. Tumors recurred in three of those who were treated with conservative surgery (15.0%); one patient had undergone a marginal resection and the other two had undergone enucleation and curettage. There were no reported recurrences in any patient who underwent radical surgery. The mean follow-up period was 46.4 months. Most oral-maxillofacial surgeons consider relevant characteristics to be the location of the tumor, its size and type, the patient’s age, sex and clinical characteristics, and the risk of recurrence.

Conservative treatments have several advantages over more radical treatments, such as segmental or block resection, and hemimandibulectomy with reconstruction surgery. Conservative treatments are substantially less invasive, can be achieved by means of an intraoral surgical approach, preserve function and aesthetics, have a shorter hospitalization time, and are more cost-effective [3]. Nonetheless, the risk of recurrence after more conservative surgery is greater as the myxoma is not encapsulated and its myxomatous tissue infiltrates the surrounding bony tissue without causing immediate destruction [3]. Therefore, complete surgical removal can be challenging, which may explain the high recurrence rates (10–30%) after conservative surgical treatment for odontogenic myxoma [20].

Differences in recurrence rate appear to be entirely accounted for by treatment approach: the rate after simple enucleation and curettage has been reported to be as high as 25% [14]. The main reason for recurrence is thought to be incomplete removal rather than the intrinsic biological behavior of the tumor [25]. Several investigators have recommended that tumor size should determine whether a radical or more conservative surgical approach should be adopted [20]. Boffano et al. suggested that conservative treatment by enucleation and curettage is recommended when the diameter of an odontogenic myxoma is less than 3 cm, whereas a segmental resection with immediate reconstruction is preferred in patients with larger tumors [2]. Our literature review found that recurrence was only reported after conservative treatment (Table 1). Kancy et al. reported a polycystic lesion in the right retromolar mandible, for which they performed a resection with preservation of mandibular continuity, filling the defect with an autologous bone graft from the iliac crest a week later [10]. Nevertheless, 5 years after surgery, a recurrence was detected. Lo Muzio et al. described two cases of recurrence after resection of large unilocular radiolucent lesions causing tooth displacement and nonhomogeneous bone reabsorption with extrusion of the third molar; both after enucleation and curettage [20]. Recently, Zanetti et al. strongly suggested conservative treatment should involve enucleation of the lesion with a wide curettage of normal tissue or a generous amount of apparently uninvolved surrounding tissue, or even peripheral osteotomy, as this has the advantage of preserving vital structures and maintaining oral function [26]. They also reported that this technique could be used to treat odontogenic myxoma should it recur after more conservative surgery [26]. In our case, the tumor was relatively large (approximately 30 × 15 × 40 mm), but even though its diameter was greater than 3 cm, we chose a more conservative approach after obtaining informed consent from the patient. As odontogenic myxoma is so rare it is not possible for a single center to accumulate sufficient expertise to examine whether a more conservative approach is also suitable for larger tumors. Indeed, the tumor in our patient was >3 cm diameter and there has been no recurrence after enucleation and wide curettage of normal surrounding tissue. If a patient should ultimately develop a recurrence having being treated according to a more conservative strategy, careful consideration should be given to the subsequent treatment. Although there is little evidence upon which to base management decisions, we recommend that further, radical surgery is warranted after recurrence of conservatively-treated odontogenic myxoma, a view that concurs with reports of three cases in the literature [10, 20].

A follow-up period is clearly also necessary. It has been recommended that patients should be followed closely for at least the first 2 years after surgery, which represents the period during which the neoplasm is most likely to recur [20]. Rocha et al. suggested that 5 years of surveillance is needed to confirm successful excision, but that ideally follow-up should be maintained indefinitely [3]. Although our patient underwent surgery more than 10 years ago, there have been no clinical or radiologic signs of recurrence.

Conclusions

The successful clinical management of this case and our systematic review of the literature should help inform treatment decisions for odontogenic myxoma, to minimize the risk of recurrence while adopting a less invasive surgical approach whenever possible.

Consent

Written informed consent was obtained from the patient for publication of this Case Report and any accompanying images. A copy of the written consent is available for review by the Editor-in-Chief of this journal.

Ethical approval

Conduct of this study conformed to the Declaration of Helsinki, and was approved by our institutional ethical committee. The patient was fully informed of the procedures and possible risks of the study, and freely gave written consent.

Declarations

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Dentistry and Orthodontics, The University of Tokyo Hospital

References

  1. Sumi Y, Miyaishi O, Ito K, Ueda M: Magnetic resonance imaging of myxoma in the mandible: a case report. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2000, 90: 671-676. 10.1067/moe.2000.108917.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  2. Boffano P, Gallesio C, Barreca A, Bianchi FA, Garzino-Demo P, Roccia F: Surgical treatment of odontogenic myxoma. J Craniofac Surg. 2011, 22: 982-987. 10.1097/SCS.0b013e3182101400.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  3. Rocha AC, Gaujac C, Ceccheti MM, Amato-Filho G, Machado GG: Treatment of recurrent mandibular myxoma by curettage and cryotherapy after thirty years. Clinics. 2009, 64: 149-152. 10.1590/S1807-59322009000200013.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  4. Miranda Rius J, Nadal A, Lahor E, Mtui B, Brunet L: Unusual presentation of localized gingival enlargement associated with a slow-growing odontogenic myxoma. Int J Oral Sci. 2013, 5: 172-175. 10.1038/ijos.2013.27.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  5. Lahey E, Woo SB, Park HK: Odontogenic myxoma with diffuse calcifications: a case report and review of the literature. Head Neck Pathol. 2013, 7: 97-102.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  6. De Melo WM, Pereira-Santos D, Brêda MA, Sonoda CK, Hochuli-Vieira E, Silva FM S e: Using the condylar prosthesis after resection of a large odontogenic myxoma tumor in the mandible. J Craniofac Surg. 2012, 23: e398-e400. 10.1097/SCS.0b013e31825b353c.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  7. Manne RK, Kumar VS, Venkata Sarath P, Anumula L, Mundlapudi S, Tanikonda R: Odontogenic myxoma of the mandible. Case Rep Dent. 2012, 2012: 214704-PubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  8. Albanese M, Nocini PF, Fior A, Rizzato A, Cristofaro MG, Sancassani G, Procacci P: Mandibular reconstruction using fresh frozen bone allograft after conservative enucleation of a mandibular odontogenic myxoma. J Craniofac Surg. 2012, 23: 831-835. 10.1097/SCS.0b013e31824dbff6.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  9. Mauro A, Lipari L, Tortorici S, Leone A, Gerbino A, Buscemi M: Expression of MMP-2 and MMP-9 in odontogenic myxoma in a child: report of a clinical case. Odontology. 2013, 101: 233-238. 10.1007/s10266-011-0056-8.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  10. Kansy K, Juergens P, Krol Z, Paulussen M, Baumhoer D, Bruder E, Schneider J, Zeilhofer HF, Schwenzer-Zimmerer K: Odontogenic myxoma: diagnostic and therapeutic challenges in paediatric and adult patients–a case series and review of the literature. Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2012, 40: 271-276. 10.1016/j.jcms.2011.04.009.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  11. Lin YL, Basile JR: A case of odontogenic myxoma with unusual histological features mimicking a fibro-osseous process. Head Neck Pathol. 2010, 4: 253-256. 10.1007/s12105-010-0189-z.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  12. Reddy SP, Naag A, Kashyap B: Odontogenic myxoma: report of two cases. Natl J Maxillofac Surg. 2010, 1: 183-186. 10.4103/0975-5950.79227.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  13. Rajasekhar G, Mushtaq M, Vura NG, Shekar R, Kumar S: Condyloma acuminatum associated with odontogenic myxoma: a case report. J Maxillofac Oral Surg. 2009, 8: 384-387. 10.1007/s12663-009-0093-9.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  14. Leiser Y, Abu-El-Naaj I, Peled M: Odontogenic myxoma–a case series and review of the surgical management. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2009, 37: 206-209. 10.1016/j.jcms.2008.10.001.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  15. Landes CA, Glasl B, Ludwig B, Rieger J, Sader R: Tooth autotransplantation in a free iliac crest graft for prosthetic reconstruction. J Craniofac Surg. 2008, 19: 1281-1286. 10.1097/SCS.0b013e31818436ef.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  16. Li TJ, Sun LS, Luo HY: Odontogenic myxoma: a clinicopathologic study of 25 cases. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2006, 130: 1799-1806.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Sharma R, Marwah N, Bedi RS, Bala S, Singh S, Arora B: Odontogenic myxoma of the mandible: a case report. Indian J Pathol Microbiol. 2003, 46: 84-86.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Kimura A, Hasegawa H, Satou K, Kitamura Y: Odontogenic myxoma showing active epithelial islands with microcystic features. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2001, 59: 1226-1228. 10.1053/joms.2001.26732.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  19. Shimoyama T, Horie N, Kato T, Tojo T, Nasu D, Kaneko T, Ide F: Soft tissue myxoma of the gingiva: report of a case and review of the literature of soft tissue myxoma in the oral region. J Oral Sci. 2000, 42: 107-109. 10.2334/josnusd.42.107.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  20. Lo Muzio L, Nocini P, Favia G, Procaccini M, Mignogna MD: Odontogenic myxoma of the jaws: a clinical, radiologic, immunohistochemical, and ultrastructural study. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 1996, 82: 426-433. 10.1016/S1079-2104(96)80309-X.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  21. Schneck DL, Gross PD, Tabor MW: Odontogenic myxoma: report of two cases with reconstruction considerations. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1993, 51: 935-940. 10.1016/S0278-2391(10)80120-X.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  22. Bucci E, Lo Muzio L, Mignogna MD, De Rosa G: Odontogenic myxoma: report of a case with peculiar features. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1991, 49: 91-94.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  23. Thoma KH, Goldman HM: Central myxoma of the jaw. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol. 1947, 33: 532-540.Google Scholar
  24. Rotenberg BW, Daniel SJ, Nish IA, Ngan BY, Forte V: Myxomatous lesions of the maxilla in children: a case series and review of management. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2004, 68: 1251-1256. 10.1016/j.ijporl.2004.04.022.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  25. Batsakis JG: Myxomas of soft tissues and the facial skeleton. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol. 1987, 96: 618-619.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  26. Zanetti LS, de Carvalho BM, Garcia IR, de Barros LA, Dos Santos PL, de Moraes Ferreira AC: Conservative treatment of odontogenic myxoma. J Craniofac Surg. 1939–1941, 2011: 22-Google Scholar

Copyright

© Kawase-Koga et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2014

This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.